Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and thecourtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basisinlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the courtonwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It'snothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Yet the system works, and has worked well .

You can't say, because you have no way of knowing if courts are basingtheir decision on existing law or not. You *couldn't* possibly knowthat. You're presuming it to be the case, but that's presumptuous.

Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing theiropinionon what their opinion of the law is.

Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.

That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has theforce of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.

I could have the term wrong - as I have frequently said I am not anexpert.

And as you routinely reveal.

Talk about circular reasoning.Meanwhile, please tell me when you became a court of law, such that youcanhave an opinion on the law.

I have no such opinion. I am simply relating how courts work.

No, you're not, because you don't know. You're not a lawyer and you'renot a legal scholar. You're not even a political scholar. You're anopinionated mouth whose opinions are based on nothing but your beliefs.

Oh? Just where am I wrong? What are your qualifications to make thisjudgment?

You're wrong when you presume that courts are basing their decisions onprior law. As I have elaborated, you have no possible way of knowing that.

Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.

--JD

"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"-- The Big Furry, Late Show with StephenColbert

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and thecourtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basisinlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the courtonwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It'snothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Yet the system works, and has worked well .

You can't say, because you have no way of knowing if courts are basingtheir decision on existing law or not. You *couldn't* possibly knowthat. You're presuming it to be the case, but that's presumptuous.

Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing theiropinionon what their opinion of the law is.

Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.

That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has theforce of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.

I could have the term wrong - as I have frequently said I am not anexpert.

And as you routinely reveal.

Talk about circular reasoning.Meanwhile, please tell me when you became a court of law, such that youcanhave an opinion on the law.

I have no such opinion. I am simply relating how courts work.

No, you're not, because you don't know. You're not a lawyer and you'renot a legal scholar. You're not even a political scholar. You're anopinionated mouth whose opinions are based on nothing but your beliefs.

Oh? Just where am I wrong? What are your qualifications to make thisjudgment?

You're wrong when you presume that courts are basing their decisions onprior law. As I have elaborated, you have no possible way of knowing that.

Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.

Which they don't always do, of course.

You're no more a lawyer or legal scholar than he is...and he admits notto being one in any way.

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had adiscussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef fromUSDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply fromWilliam T.Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Herebelow is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing yourcorrespondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposedstandard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to WilliamSessions, the associate deputy administrator (how'sthat for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program atUSDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mailaddress are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>To: <jonball@[...]>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claimstandards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, thestandards have not been published in a final form for use. Ihope this information is helpful.Please let me know if further information is needed.Thanks,William T. SessionsAssociate Deputy AdministratorLivestock and Seed Program

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seenmany of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot findanything to indicate if the standards were adopted.Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had adiscussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef fromUSDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply fromWilliam T.Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Herebelow is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing yourcorrespondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposedstandard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to WilliamSessions, the associate deputy administrator (how'sthat for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program atUSDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mailaddress are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>To: <jonball@[...]>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claimstandards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, thestandards have not been published in a final form for use. Ihope this information is helpful.Please let me know if further information is needed.Thanks,William T. SessionsAssociate Deputy AdministratorLivestock and Seed Program

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seenmany of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot findanything to indicate if the standards were adopted.Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had adiscussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef fromUSDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply fromWilliam T.Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Herebelow is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing yourcorrespondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposedstandard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to WilliamSessions, the associate deputy administrator (how'sthat for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program atUSDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mailaddress are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>To: <jonball@[...]>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claimstandards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, thestandards have not been published in a final form for use. Ihope this information is helpful.Please let me know if further information is needed.Thanks,William T. SessionsAssociate Deputy AdministratorLivestock and Seed Program

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seenmany of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot findanything to indicate if the standards were adopted.Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

-------------------------------------------------[Courtesy of Buster Norris]http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/8fff1088d734b4ed?hl=enThe Beast that Ate Hollywood would like you to know that she's asecretary at UCLA in the Physics Dept.

They probably use her for gravity experiments on super-denseobjects........ HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-------------------------------------------------[Courtesy of Buster Norris]http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/8fff1088d734b4ed?hl=enThe Beast that Ate Hollywood would like you to know that she's asecretary at UCLA in the Physics Dept.

They probably use her for gravity experiments on super-denseobjects........ HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-------------------------------------------------[Courtesy of Buster Norris]http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/8fff1088d734b4ed?hl=enThe Beast that Ate Hollywood would like you to know that she's asecretary at UCLA in the Physics Dept.

They probably use her for gravity experiments on super-denseobjects........ HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had adiscussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef fromUSDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply fromWilliam T.Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Herebelow is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing yourcorrespondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposedstandard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to WilliamSessions, the associate deputy administrator (how'sthat for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program atUSDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mailaddress are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>To: <jonball@[...]>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claimstandards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, thestandards have not been published in a final form for use. Ihope this information is helpful.Please let me know if further information is needed.Thanks,William T. SessionsAssociate Deputy AdministratorLivestock and Seed Program

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seenmany of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot findanything to indicate if the standards were adopted.Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and the courtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basisinlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the courtonwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

Supposed to be.....well shit... with assurances like that why would anyoneever question the courts......why even bother having a Constitution or aLegislature.....we can just let leave everything to the courts.

Oh, that's right, the courts don't base everything upon prior existing law,instead they not only ignore existing law, but even 'law' that doesn't evenexist except in their imaginations.

So, as I observed, the law is whatever the courts say it is per your ownclaims.

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and the courtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basisinlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the courtonwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

Supposed to be.....well shit... with assurances like that why would anyoneever question the courts......why even bother having a Constitution or aLegislature.....we can just let leave everything to the courts.

They are legally required to base rulings on prior existing law butsince the judges are human upon occasion I would bet they don't. Thatwould be corrected when the case is reviewed by a higher court.

Post by ScoutOh, that's right, the courts don't base everything upon prior existing law,instead they not only ignore existing law, but even 'law' that doesn't evenexist except in their imaginations.

Citations are required when a ruling is published.

Post by ScoutSo, as I observed, the law is whatever the courts say it is per your ownclaims.

Yes, it is. That is how our system works, like it or not.

--Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a governmentguaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quicklybefore you run into me.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypowerover the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsasany other part of the federal government. Though they might try todenyit.

NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so theSupreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S.constitution'sjurisdiction,

Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.

OK....please cite the Constitutional provision that allows the federalgovernment to set EPA mandates.Oh, let me guess, there is no such provision, you claim it because thecourts do?

I am not an attorney nor am I an expert on law.

And yet you seem MORE than opinionated on the law.

I know enough to know my opinions

Sorry, but by your own statements your opinion is meaningless since you'renot a court of law.

My opinion about any particular law is meaningless, that is correct.

If you know nothing about any particular law, then you don't know the law atall.

After all, the sum of the whole is made up of it's parts. If you knownothing about any particular, then by direct extension you know nothingabout the sum.

So shut up.

Strange how you keep wanting to talk about the law, you claim to knownothing about.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypowerover the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsasany other part of the federal government. Though they might try todenyit.

NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so theSupreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S.constitution'sjurisdiction,

Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.

OK....please cite the Constitutional provision that allows the federalgovernment to set EPA mandates.Oh, let me guess, there is no such provision, you claim it because thecourts do?

I am not an attorney nor am I an expert on law.

And yet you seem MORE than opinionated on the law.

I know enough to know my opinions

Sorry, but by your own statements your opinion is meaningless since you'renot a court of law.

My opinion about any particular law is meaningless, that is correct.

If you know nothing about any particular law, then you don't know the law atall.

I never said I know "the law". I do know a small bit about how thelegal system works - enough to know it is impossible to simply readsomething and know what it means legally and how it would beinterpreted in court.

Post by ScoutAfter all, the sum of the whole is made up of it's parts. If you knownothing about any particular, then by direct extension you know nothingabout the sum.So shut up.

There you go again.

Post by ScoutStrange how you keep wanting to talk about the law, you claim to knownothing about.

I know enough to detect a blowhard when I see one.

--Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a governmentguaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quicklybefore you run into me.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypowerover the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsasany other part of the federal government. Though they might try todenyit.

NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so theSupreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S.constitution'sjurisdiction,

Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.

OK....please cite the Constitutional provision that allows the federalgovernment to set EPA mandates.Oh, let me guess, there is no such provision, you claim it because thecourts do?

I am not an attorney nor am I an expert on law.

And yet you seem MORE than opinionated on the law.

I know enough to know my opinions

Sorry, but by your own statements your opinion is meaningless since you'renot a court of law.

My opinion about any particular law is meaningless, that is correct.

If you know nothing about any particular law, then you don't know the law atall.

I never said I know "the law". I do know a small bit about how thelegal system works - enough to know it is impossible to simply readsomething and know what it means legally and how it would beinterpreted in court.

Post by ScoutAfter all, the sum of the whole is made up of it's parts. If you knownothing about any particular, then by direct extension you know nothingabout the sum.So shut up.

There you go again.

Post by ScoutStrange how you keep wanting to talk about the law, you claim to knownothing about.

I know enough to detect a blowhard when I see one.

You both are. You're just not quite as much a know-it-all or asbombastic as he is.

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had adiscussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef fromUSDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply fromWilliam T.Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Herebelow is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing yourcorrespondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposedstandard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to WilliamSessions, the associate deputy administrator (how'sthat for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program atUSDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mailaddress are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>To: <jonball@[...]>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claimstandards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, thestandards have not been published in a final form for use. Ihope this information is helpful.Please let me know if further information is needed.Thanks,William T. SessionsAssociate Deputy AdministratorLivestock and Seed Program

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seenmany of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot findanything to indicate if the standards were adopted.Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had adiscussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef fromUSDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply fromWilliam T.Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Herebelow is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing yourcorrespondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposedstandard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to WilliamSessions, the associate deputy administrator (how'sthat for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program atUSDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mailaddress are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>To: <jonball@[...]>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claimstandards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, thestandards have not been published in a final form for use. Ihope this information is helpful.Please let me know if further information is needed.Thanks,William T. SessionsAssociate Deputy AdministratorLivestock and Seed Program

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seenmany of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot findanything to indicate if the standards were adopted.Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypowerover the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsasany other part of the federal government. Though they might try todenyit.

NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so theSupreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S.constitution'sjurisdiction,

Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.

OK....please cite the Constitutional provision that allows the federalgovernment to set EPA mandates.Oh, let me guess, there is no such provision, you claim it because thecourts do?

I am not an attorney nor am I an expert on law.

And yet you seem MORE than opinionated on the law.

I know enough to know my opinions

Sorry, but by your own statements your opinion is meaningless since you'renot a court of law.

My opinion about any particular law is meaningless, that is correct.

If you know nothing about any particular law, then you don't know the law atall.

I never said I know "the law".

And yet time and again you've stated that the law requires the courts to dothis or that, the law is this or that, or whatever bolsters your argument atthe time.

Now you claim you don't know the law.

Tell you what, when you do know what you're talking about, maybe you can trythis again.

Until then..... nothing you say has any meaning or merit and will be ignoredunless supported by direct evidence and facts.

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and thecourtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basisinlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the courtonwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's nothingbut wishful thinking on your part.

Does seem to be the a major fallacy in his reasoning, if you can call itreasoning.

Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing theiropinionon what their opinion of the law is.

Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.

That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has theforce of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.

Talk about circular reasoning.Meanwhile, please tell me when you became a court of law, such that youcanhave an opinion on the law.

I have no such opinion. I am simply relating how courts work.

No, you're not, because you don't know. You're not a lawyer and you'renot a legal scholar. You're not even a political scholar. You're anopinionated mouth whose opinions are based on nothing but your beliefs.

*ding* *Ding* *DING*

Congratulations, we have a winner. Pick any item from the top shelf.

Yep, he wants to express his opinions, even though he admits he knowsnothing about the law. Yet complains when others who do know the law want toshare their opinions and correct his errors on the law.

Seems he's allowed to talk and the courts can talk, but everyone else shouldshut up.

Post by ScoutYep, he wants to express his opinions, even though he admits he knowsnothing about the law. Yet complains when others who do know the law want toshare their opinions and correct his errors on the law.

I have yet to see anyone claim to have any legal training whatsoeveranywhere in this conversation. Do you have such training?

Just what 'errors on the law' have I made since I have tried very hardnot to comment on any law but only on the mechanism of how the legalsystem works plus pointing out it is based heavily on precedent. Thatprecedent requires a specialized knowledge and training to understand- the average person may think he knows what something says butlegally it could mean something entirely different.

--Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a governmentguaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quicklybefore you run into me.

Post by ScoutYep, he wants to express his opinions, even though he admits he knowsnothing about the law. Yet complains when others who do know the law want toshare their opinions and correct his errors on the law.

I have yet to see anyone claim to have any legal training whatsoeveranywhere in this conversation. Do you have such training?

Why? Do you think the relevance of my arguments would be altered in theleast if I did or didn't assert such training?

I've got an idea, how about you just deal with the arguments made and seewhere the discussion goes?

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and thecourtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need nobasis inlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now caselaw.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of thecourt onwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It'snothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Yet the system works, and has worked well .

Really?

We have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and courtsthat utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you claim that's isworking well?

It would be like a baseball team rushing for a first down. It's not in therules, it's not even in the game.....but hey as long as the team says theycan do it.......seems to be 'working well'.

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and thecourtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need nobasis inlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now caselaw.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of thecourt onwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It'snothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Yet the system works, and has worked well .

Really?

Yes, really.

Post by ScoutWe have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and courtsthat utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you claim that's isworking well?

Just exactly what are your qualifications to judge whether or not acase ignores, rewrites, or reinvents the Constitution?

Post by ScoutIt would be like a baseball team rushing for a first down. It's not in therules, it's not even in the game.....but hey as long as the team says theycan do it.......seems to be 'working well'.

Except this isn't sports when next week or next year few people carewho did what in some game.

A legal ruling in all of it's detail will be available for cite ahundred years from now.

--Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a governmentguaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quicklybefore you run into me.

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and thecourtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need nobasis inlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now caselaw.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of thecourt onwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It'snothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Yet the system works, and has worked well .

Really?

Yes, really.

Post by ScoutWe have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and courtsthat utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you claim that's isworking well?

Just exactly what are your qualifications to judge whether or not acase ignores, rewrites, or reinvents the Constitution?

Well, unlike you I'm able to think for myself without having to be told whatto think.

Seems to you assertions of authority are more relevant than the actualarguments made.

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and thecourtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need nobasis inlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now caselaw.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of thecourt onwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It'snothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Yet the system works, and has worked well .

Really?

Yes, really.

Post by ScoutWe have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and courtsthat utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you claim that's isworking well?

Just exactly what are your qualifications to judge whether or not acase ignores, rewrites, or reinvents the Constitution?

I am as educated and fluent in English as those that wrote theconstitution so I am just as well equipped to understand it as they were.

--That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOTto allow you to deny other people their rights.

Post by ScoutWe have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....andcourts that utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and youclaim that's is working well?

It works well enough for rulings you like,like Heller and Citizens United.

erading simultaneously as

Post by Mitchell Holman"Jeri Taylor" and "Tom Ballard" (and having "conversations"with himself in t.p.g, each alias congratulating theother on how well "they" were trouncing pro-gun people),Mitchell has pretty much steered clear of t.p.g, butI guess the prospect of dancing in fresh blood was toomuch for him, so he came back reincarnated as "Diana Trent".I'm not going to reveal too much about how I caught him(her? it?) this time, because I don't want to give himpointers on how I recognize his aliases whenever theyshow up, but here's one of the (many) clinchers in theIn his past posts, Mitchell Holman has revealed himselfto be quite a fan of things British, and of British comedy.Previously, Holman has masqueraded as "Tom Ballard".There's a British comedy TV series called "Waitingfor God", about an old couple at an atrocious nursinghome. The names of the two primary characters areTom Ballard and... (drumroll please) Diana Trent.Shall we call "Ripley's", or would "Diana" like to admitthe ruse?

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and thecourtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basisinlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the courtonwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It'snothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Yet the system works, and has worked well .

You can't say, because you have no way of knowing if courts are basingtheir decision on existing law or not. You *couldn't* possibly knowthat. You're presuming it to be the case, but that's presumptuous.

Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing theiropinionon what their opinion of the law is.

Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.

That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has theforce of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.

I could have the term wrong - as I have frequently said I am not anexpert.

And as you routinely reveal.

Talk about circular reasoning.Meanwhile, please tell me when you became a court of law, such that youcanhave an opinion on the law.

I have no such opinion. I am simply relating how courts work.

No, you're not, because you don't know. You're not a lawyer and you'renot a legal scholar. You're not even a political scholar. You're anopinionated mouth whose opinions are based on nothing but your beliefs.

Oh? Just where am I wrong? What are your qualifications to make thisjudgment?

You're wrong when you presume that courts are basing their decisions onprior law. As I have elaborated, you have no possible way of knowing that.

Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.

Really? Tell me, how often does the court cite prior law that always sayswhat they claim it does, and how often do they cite statutes claiming theysay this or that, or even the opinions of other courts claiming the law isthis or that?

I've read a large number of court cases, and almost ALL invoke the opinionsof other courts, which often have NOTHING to do with what exists withinstatutory law.

Really? Tell me, how often does the court cite prior law that always sayswhat they claim it does, and how often do they cite statutes claiming theysay this or that, or even the opinions of other courts claiming the law isthis or that?I've read a large number of court cases, and almost ALL invoke the opinionsof other courts, which often have NOTHING to do with what exists withinstatutory law.

An excellent example of how an untrained reader is incapable ofunderstanding the legal basis for a ruling as well as the value ofsuch an opinion.

--Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a governmentguaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quicklybefore you run into me.

Really? Tell me, how often does the court cite prior law that always sayswhat they claim it does, and how often do they cite statutes claiming theysay this or that, or even the opinions of other courts claiming the law isthis or that?I've read a large number of court cases, and almost ALL invoke the opinionsof other courts, which often have NOTHING to do with what exists withinstatutory law.

An excellent example of how an untrained reader is incapable ofunderstanding the legal basis for a ruling as well as the value ofsuch an opinion.

You speak of yourself, even that you've admitted to being an untrainedreader.

Whereas I have not made my qualifications or lack thereof an issue, becauseIMO they should be irrelevant to the validity of my argument.

Seems unless some asserts to be an authority......you simply ignore theargument no matter how valid it is.

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and the courtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basis inlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the court onwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It'snothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Yet the system works, and has worked well .

You can't say, because you have no way of knowing if courts are basingtheir decision on existing law or not. You *couldn't* possibly knowthat. You're presuming it to be the case, but that's presumptuous.

True, but today there are so many trained people watching the courts,especially in major cases, ready, willing, and able to jump on anycase that strays from what they see as the straight and narrow thatsomeone would throw up a flag. Or file a suit, as they deem proper.

Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing their opinionon what their opinion of the law is.

Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.

That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has theforce of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.

I could have the term wrong - as I have frequently said I am not anexpert.

And as you routinely reveal.

So what? Does that invalidate any thing I have said? Which isbasically that the opinions of untrained individuals do not matter -only court decisions are enforceable.

I take it you somehow disagree?

Talk about circular reasoning.Meanwhile, please tell me when you became a court of law, such that you canhave an opinion on the law.

I have no such opinion. I am simply relating how courts work.

No, you're not, because you don't know. You're not a lawyer and you'renot a legal scholar. You're not even a political scholar. You're anopinionated mouth whose opinions are based on nothing but your beliefs.

Oh? Just where am I wrong? What are your qualifications to make thisjudgment?

You're wrong when you presume that courts are basing their decisions onprior law. As I have elaborated, you have no possible way of knowing that.

But those who would know are watching every important case. Plus evercourt ruling must cite the basis for that ruling. Anyone whodisagrees is free to file a lawsuit.

--Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a governmentguaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quicklybefore you run into me.

The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for thegovernment to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?Thatwould seem to discriminate against people without children and therichrespectively.

Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.

Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?

Not in the least. Just because some people, including those within thegovernment, have issues applying the concept doesn't mean it isn't clearon it's intent.

The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for thegovernment to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?Thatwould seem to discriminate against people without children and therichrespectively.

Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.

Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?

Not in the least. Just because some people, including those within thegovernment, have issues applying the concept doesn't mean it isn't clearon it's intent.

The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for thegovernment to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?Thatwould seem to discriminate against people without children and therichrespectively.

Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.

Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?

Not in the least. Just because some people, including those within thegovernment, have issues applying the concept doesn't mean it isn't clearon it's intent.

The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for thegovernment to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?Thatwould seem to discriminate against people without children and therichrespectively.

Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.

Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?

Not in the least. Just because some people, including those within thegovernment, have issues applying the concept doesn't mean it isn't clearon it's intent.

The child tax credit is unconstitutional? Amazing!

What's so amazing?

That you think the child tax credit is unconstitutional.

Tell you what, why don't you show me in the Constitution where the federalgovernment has a power to impose a negative tax on some people?

The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for thegovernment to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?That would seem to discriminate against people without children and therich respectively.

Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.

Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?

Not in the least. Just because some people, including those within thegovernment, have issues applying the concept doesn't mean it isn'tclear on it's intent.

The child tax credit is unconstitutional? Amazing!

What's so amazing?

That you think the child tax credit is unconstitutional.

Tell you what, why don't you show me in the Constitution where thefederal government has a power to impose a negative tax on some people?

Firstly, we weren't debating the power of the federal government. Wewere debating the meaning of the equal protection clause, which appliesto the states as well. So, let's stay on topic.

Many states have child tax credits as well. You argue that the equalprotection is so clear, that such a tax credit violates the clause.That's absurd and amazingly so!

Really? The parents are taxed and the parents get a credit for eachdependent child. The term "child tax credit" is shorthand for thecredit the parents get. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubtand assume you were being snarky rather than stupid.

Absolutely true, but suppose an Amendment was ratified thatexpresslycanceled the anti-slavery provisions of the other Amendments andreinstated slavery? And the courts, based upon that Amendment,ruledI was a slave?

Then you would be a slave.

Correct.

See? They don't need a law to allow them to make you a slave. Theyjusthaveto say the law allows them to do it.

If they hold that a law allows me to be made a slave then the resultis that there is in fact a law that allows this.

No, the only 'law' needed would be the whim of the court to assert thereis.

No, any court findings must be based upon existing law

And yet we regularly see court findings that aren't based on existing law,and indeed can't even be found within the law.

If you read the opinion you will see they are all based upon priorexisting law or the Constitution.

Ok, show me.

Show me that every ruling ever made by every US court was based only uponprior existing statutory law or the Constitution.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypower overthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions asanyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.

The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that thesupremecourt can interpret the constitution....Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.

Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system as well as the otherbranches of government and has been for over 200 years.

Didn't you get abortion changed after 200 years and it's NOT writtenanywhere in the constitution.

Very few laws apply to anything actually spelled out in theConstitution.

And that should be of great concern to anyone that is interested inupholding the law.

Why? It would be impossible to amend the constitution to spell outevery law.

No, but it could certainly be Amended to spell out the specific areas inwhich the government can enact law.

Laws can now be enacted in any area.

And that, is EXACTLY the problem.

Remember the 10th Amendment?

Tell us again how the courts, base their rulings only on existing law.

Let me guess, this is where you claim to need a court to tell you what thatAmendment says.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically deniedanypower overthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsasanyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to denyit.

See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.

The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that thesupremecourt can interpret the constitution....Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.

Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system as well as the otherbranches of government and has been for over 200 years.

Didn't you get abortion changed after 200 years and it's NOTwrittenanywhere in the constitution.

Very few laws apply to anything actually spelled out in theConstitution.

And that should be of great concern to anyone that is interested inupholding the law.

Why? It would be impossible to amend the constitution to spell outevery law.

No, but it could certainly be Amended to spell out the specific areasinwhich the government can enact law.

Laws can now be enacted in any area.

Not by just any legislature. As badly as federalism has beendiminished, nonetheless the federal Congress cannot enact laws dictatingwho may - or must - be appointed to state courts, for example. As anunapologetic statist, you certainly think otherwise.

True - each legislative body has a rigidly defined area ofresponsibility.

And when did the Judicial branch's defined areas of responsibility includemaking law?

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically deniedanypower overthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsasanyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to denyit.

See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.

The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that thesupremecourt can interpret the constitution....Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.

Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system as well as the otherbranches of government and has been for over 200 years.

Didn't you get abortion changed after 200 years and it's NOTwrittenanywhere in the constitution.

Very few laws apply to anything actually spelled out in theConstitution.

And that should be of great concern to anyone that is interested inupholding the law.

Why? It would be impossible to amend the constitution to spell outevery law.

No, but it could certainly be Amended to spell out the specific areasinwhich the government can enact law.

Laws can now be enacted in any area.

Remember the 10th Amendment. If it's not spelled out....then thegovernmenthas NO authority to regulate within such an area.

That is the federal government that has enumerated powers. All othersare reserved to the states.

Or to the people, which means state governments also have limited powers.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions asanyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.

The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that thesupremecourt can interpret the constitution....Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.

Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system

Entire legal system?Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the UnitedStates of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?

See Marbury v. Madison, as I said.

Where exactly in the Constitution do a I find the clause "Maybury v.Madison"?My copy doesn't seem to have any such clause.

You are willing to go to any length to be argumentative aren't you?

No, I asked where it's accepted by the Constitution, you cited a header, andI couldn't find it in my copy of the US Constitution.

Even if it makes you appear to be a fool?

Just showing that your mouth is running, but you don't know what you'retalking about.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions asanyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.

The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that thesupremecourt can interpret the constitution....Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.

Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system

Entire legal system?Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the UnitedStates of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?

See Marbury v. Madison, as I said. The Constitution is a document -it doesn't 'accept' anything."In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for thefirst time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congressvoid if it is inconsistent with the Constitution."http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madisonArgue with the court system, not me. After all, I have nothing to dowith accepting or rejecting it - they do.

An act of congress that is inconsistent with the constitution, but whenan act of the court is inconsistent with the Constitution, who stops that?

Another court decision or a new act of Congress.

Sorry, court can simply ignore Congress by 'interpreting' their act to saywhatever it is the court wants it to.

Seems the only reign on the Courts are themselves, at least according toyour views.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions asanyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.

The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that thesupremecourt can interpret the constitution....Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.

Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system

Entire legal system?Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the UnitedStates of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?

See Marbury v. Madison, as I said. The Constitution is a document -it doesn't 'accept' anything."In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for thefirst time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congressvoid if it is inconsistent with the Constitution."http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madisonArgue with the court system, not me. After all, I have nothing to dowith accepting or rejecting it - they do.

An act of congress that is inconsistent with the constitution, but whenan act of the court is inconsistent with the Constitution, who stopsthat?

Such as? Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent with theConstitution.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically deniedany poweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsas anyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.

The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that thesupremecourt can interpret the constitution....Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.

Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system

Entire legal system?Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the UnitedStates of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?

See Marbury v. Madison, as I said. The Constitution is a document -it doesn't 'accept' anything."In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for thefirst time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congressvoid if it is inconsistent with the Constitution."http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madisonArgue with the court system, not me. After all, I have nothing to dowith accepting or rejecting it - they do.

An act of congress that is inconsistent with the constitution, but whenan act of the court is inconsistent with the Constitution, who stopsthat?

Such as? Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent withthe Constitution.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollutionPlease indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, iefederal government, to regulate smoke.

Don't be a clown. That decision was about whether or not regulationsset forth pursuant to a *law* were in fact consistent with the *law*.The constitutionality of the law was not being challenged. Theplaintiffs said the regulations violated the law.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically deniedany poweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsas anyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.

The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that thesupremecourt can interpret the constitution....Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.

Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system

Entire legal system?Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the UnitedStates of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?

See Marbury v. Madison, as I said. The Constitution is a document -it doesn't 'accept' anything."In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for thefirst time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congressvoid if it is inconsistent with the Constitution."http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madisonArgue with the court system, not me. After all, I have nothing to dowith accepting or rejecting it - they do.

An act of congress that is inconsistent with the constitution, but whenan act of the court is inconsistent with the Constitution, who stopsthat?

Such as? Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent withthe Constitution.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollutionPlease indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, iefederal government, to regulate smoke.

Don't be a clown. That decision was about whether or not regulations setforth pursuant to a *law* were in fact consistent with the *law*. Theconstitutionality of the law was not being challenged. The plaintiffssaid the regulations violated the law.

Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent withthe Constitution.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollutionPlease indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, iefederal government, to regulate smoke.

"Congress shall have power to ... make all Laws which shall be necessaryand proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers,"

one of those foregoing powers being

"to regulate Commerce ...] among the several States"

Quoting Justice Scalia:

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are notthemselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have asubstantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessaryand Proper Clause"

Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent withthe Constitution.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollutionPlease indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, iefederal government, to regulate smoke.

"Congress shall have power to ... make all Laws which shall be necessaryand proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers,"one of those foregoing powers being"to regulate Commerce ...] among the several States"

Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent withthe Constitution.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollutionPlease indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, iefederal government, to regulate smoke.

"Congress shall have power to ... make all Laws which shall benecessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers,"one of those foregoing powers being"to regulate Commerce ...] among the several States"

So....They are buying the smoke from another state?Exactly where is the interstate commerce in smoke?Can you show me where one state bought smoke from another?

If you read - instead of snipped - Scalia's reasoning, you would realizethere is no commerce involved. But, there is an activity thatsubstantially affects interstate commerce. Again, quoting Scalia:

"activities that substantially affect interstate commerce are notthemselves part of interstate commerce, and thus the power to regulatethem cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone [...] Congress’sregulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not themselvespart of interstate commerce (including activities that have asubstantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessaryand Proper Clause"

Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent withthe Constitution.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollutionPlease indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, iefederal government, to regulate smoke.

"Congress shall have power to ... make all Laws which shall benecessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers,"one of those foregoing powers being"to regulate Commerce ...] among the several States"

So....They are buying the smoke from another state?Exactly where is the interstate commerce in smoke?Can you show me where one state bought smoke from another?

The EPA concerns its self with things that you do in your own backyard.... They are NOT commerce.

--That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOTto allow you to deny other people their rights.

Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent withthe Constitution.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollutionPlease indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, iefederal government, to regulate smoke.

"Congress shall have power to ... make all Laws which shall be necessaryand proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers,"one of those foregoing powers being"to regulate Commerce ...] among the several States""Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are notthemselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have asubstantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessaryand Proper Clause"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

I think the federal governments' expansion of power due to thecommerce clause and the N&P clause has gone too far, but regulationof pollution of interstate waterways (the Ohio, Mississippi, theMissouri, the Colorado and other "navigable waters") and of watersthat make up international boundaries under the treaty power, notablythe Great Lakes, the Rio Grande, etc, are one of the nationalgovernments basic duties. Treating the atmosphere we all have tobreathe, which respects state boundaries even less than waterin lakes and rivers, as a federal responsibility also makes sense.Smog created in one state wafts into another, with the receiving statehaving no jurisdiction over a polluter in the creating state.

The alternative would be interstate compacts, which often need federalapproval, anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact

[quote]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty ofTonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter intoany Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Dangeras will not admit of delay.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypower overthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions asanyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.

The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that thesupremecourt can interpret the constitution....Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.

Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system as well as the otherbranches of government and has been for over 200 years.

Didn't you get abortion changed after 200 years and it's NOT writtenanywhere in the constitution.

Very few laws apply to anything actually spelled out in theConstitution.

And that should be of great concern to anyone that is interested inupholding the law.

Why? It would be impossible to amend the constitution to spell outevery law.

No, but it could certainly be Amended to spell out the specific areas inwhich the government can enact law.

Laws can now be enacted in any area.

Not by just any legislature. As badly as federalism has beendiminished, nonetheless the federal Congress cannot enact laws dictatingwho may - or must - be appointed to state courts, for example. As anunapologetic statist, you certainly think otherwise.

True - each legislative body has a rigidly defined area ofresponsibility. No state can pass a law that is effective in anotherstate and no city can pass a law that covers the entire state.That is obvious.

Remember the 10th Amendment. If it's not spelled out....then the governmenthas NO authority to regulate within such an area.

That is the federal government that has enumerated powers. All othersare reserved to the states.

Now....where exactly in the Constitution do I see an enumerated authorityfor the federal government to regulate.....the environment, for example.

Since I am not a legal scholar I have no idea.

Truer words seldom spoken, and almost never so candidly.

Which is why I restrict my comments to the mechanism of the courts andI am not stupid enough to think I can read a law and know how it is tobe legally applied. That is why law books exist and standard wordingin legal documents.

You don't have any expertise regarding the mechanism of the courts, either.

I know enough so I don't quote some law or amendment and then makegrandiose claims about how it does or doesn't apply or where it isunconstitutional. Unlike many here.

But such powers are obviously accepted to exist.

petitio principii

--Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a governmentguaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quicklybefore you run into me.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as anyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

Which only proves my point. If the court had to grant itself such apower,then clearly it wasn't granted by the Constitution.

According to the court it was. In Article 3.

Great, then you can show me the specific language in Article 3 that doeswhat the courts assert.

I am not an attorney

The shut the fuck up.

There you go again.

By your own standards you lack everything necessary to read and interpretthe law and thus your opinion is meaningless.

Where have I read and interpreted any law? My comments have beenrestricted to how the courts operate and not the content of anyparticular ruling.

Sorry, but you've made countless assertions on the law, the legality of theCourts to do whatever they want, and how their rulings are all supported byexisting statutory law.

Now, you claim that you didn't do that, you know nothing about the law, oreven the rulings of the courts.

Time for you to make with cites, your empty unsupported assertion andrhetoric just isn't going to cut it anymore.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions asanyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.And here you told me they couldn't.

They didn't. Article 3.

[""""""Article IIISection 1. The *judicial Power* of the United States *shall be vested**in one supreme Court* , *and in such inferior Courts as the Congress*may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of thesupreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during goodBehaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services aCompensation, which shall not be diminished during their ContinuanceinOffice.Article IIISection 2. *The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law**and**Equity* , *arising under this Constitution* , the Laws of the UnitedStates, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, *under their**Authority* ; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other publicMinisters and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritimeJurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be aParty; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between aStateand Citizens of another State; [Note: modified by Amendment XI] -between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the sameState claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between aState, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens orSubjects.In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers andConsuls,and those in which a State shall be Party, *the supreme Court shall**have original Jurisdiction* . *In all the other Cases before**mentioned* , *the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction* ,*both as to Law and Fact* , *with such Exceptions* , *and under such**Regulations as the Congress shall make* .The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be byJury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimesshall have been committed; but when not committed within any State,theTrial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law havedirected.%Article IIISection 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only inlevying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving themAid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on theTestimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession inopen Court.The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason,butno Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeitureexcept during the Life of the Person attainted."""""""]The congress has no power to change the constitution and interpret itand so neither can they empower/delegate the courts any power tochangethe constitution.

Agreed. It takes a ratified Amendment.

So when exactly was Marbury v. Madison ratified as a ConstitutionalAmendment?

That case was not made by congress but by a court. Totally differentsituation.

So much for your bullshit assertion that it takes a ratified Amendment tochange the Constitution.

Not at all. That requirement is accepted by the entire legalcommunity.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as anyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.And here you told me they couldn't.

They didn't. Article 3.

Then show me the specific language there that does what the courtasserts.

Read the decision.

Where in the Constitution do I find that 'decision'?

There you go again.

Asking you to back up your bullshit?

I suppose as long as you keep producing it, I'm going to keep asking you toback it up.

The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutionalfor the government to have a child tax credit or a progressiveincome tax? That would seem to discriminate against peoplewithout children and the rich respectively.

Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.

Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?

Discrimination of protected classes is prohibitted. Someprotected classes are determined by law. Some are decidedby courts, and those are the ones not so clear.

Only the courts define protected classes for the Equal Protectionclause. The protected classes determined by law apply to discriminationby private parties (e.g., restaurants and employers).

The equal protection clause admits of no "classes" of people. To grouppeople into "classes" for disparate treatment under the law violates theequal protection clause.

Is the child tax credit unconstitutional? After all, the governmentgrouped people into two classes: those with children and those without.

The entire tax system is unconstitutional since it groups peopleaccording to income.

Is Social Security unconstitutional because it discriminates againstthe young by dividing the population according to age?

--Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a governmentguaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quicklybefore you run into me.

The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutionalfor the government to have a child tax credit or a progressiveincome tax? That would seem to discriminate against peoplewithout children and the rich respectively.

Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.

Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?

Discrimination of protected classes is prohibitted. Someprotected classes are determined by law. Some are decidedby courts, and those are the ones not so clear.

Only the courts define protected classes for the Equal Protectionclause. The protected classes determined by law apply to discriminationby private parties (e.g., restaurants and employers).

The equal protection clause admits of no "classes" of people. To grouppeople into "classes" for disparate treatment under the law violates theequal protection clause.

Is the child tax credit unconstitutional? After all, the governmentgrouped people into two classes: those with children and those without.

The entire tax system is unconstitutional since it groups peopleaccording to income.

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had adiscussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef fromUSDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply fromWilliam T.Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Herebelow is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing yourcorrespondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposedstandard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to WilliamSessions, the associate deputy administrator (how'sthat for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program atUSDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mailaddress are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>To: <jonball@[...]>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claimstandards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, thestandards have not been published in a final form for use. Ihope this information is helpful.Please let me know if further information is needed.Thanks,William T. SessionsAssociate Deputy AdministratorLivestock and Seed Program

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seenmany of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot findanything to indicate if the standards were adopted.Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutionalfor the government to have a child tax credit or a progressiveincome tax? That would seem to discriminate against peoplewithout children and the rich respectively.

Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.

Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?

Discrimination of protected classes is prohibitted. Someprotected classes are determined by law. Some are decidedby courts, and those are the ones not so clear.

Only the courts define protected classes for the Equal Protectionclause. The protected classes determined by law apply to discriminationby private parties (e.g., restaurants and employers).

The equal protection clause admits of no "classes" of people. To grouppeople into "classes" for disparate treatment under the law violates theequal protection clause.

Is the child tax credit unconstitutional? After all, the governmentgrouped people into two classes: those with children and those without.

The entire tax system is unconstitutional since it groups peopleaccording to income.

Amazing!

Post by AttilaIs Social Security unconstitutional because it discriminates againstthe young by dividing the population according to age?

That would be absurd, just like the argument that the entire tax systemis unconstitutional.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any poweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as anyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.And here you told me they couldn't.

They didn't. Article 3.

Then show me the specific language there that does what the court asserts.

Read the decision. They are the experts with the opinion thatactually counts.

Being an expert in a corrupt invalid system isn't of any use to anyonewhen that corrupted system is put back under the actual constitution andthe shadow constitution and shadow government is dumped. In case youhaven't noticed, Liberals and their ilk are no there to expand theshadow government. We will be moving back to the actual constitutionthat you didn't change from all the pretend court written constitutionreplacement decisions.You need to understand the actual document NOT the court made rulingsoutside the constitution. The judicial system will collapse as theconstitution is corrupted and all those pseudo intellectuals will beuseless because they rely on a corrupted system that will be out datedand non functional.

None of that is at all accurate or makes any sense.

Unless you can see reality.Tell us again.... who is President?

Trump.

Who is running congress?

Define "running".

Why are the court systems and constitutional issues so fucked up?

Calls for an opinion. How many days do you have?

--Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a governmentguaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quicklybefore you run into me.

So someone looks at a law. They write a book aboutwhat it says. Who cares? Someone else can writea different book about that same law saying somethingentirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of theseopinions actually means anything?

Courts care, sometimes they care a lot.There are many books written pretty much that way, whichRestatements of the Lawhttps://www.ali.org/publications/American Jurisprudence, 2dhttp://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/American-Jurisprudence-2d/p/100027544Corpus Juris Secundumhttp://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/Corpus-Juris-Secundumreg/p/100001060There are more books in major law libraries wheresomeone writes a book about what the law says thanthere are books containing statutes and case law.

Yes, and all of these are written by legal professionals and trainedexperts. I was obviously talking about books written by someone whosimply reads something and then thinks he is an instant expert whoknows all about it.

Give us an example. I doubt you can.

Read some of the examples here about how something is unconstitutionaland then provides a quote from the Constitution to 'prove' it.

--Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a governmentguaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quicklybefore you run into me.

So someone looks at a law. They write a book aboutwhat it says. Who cares? Someone else can writea different book about that same law saying somethingentirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of theseopinions actually means anything?

Courts care, sometimes they care a lot.There are many books written pretty much that way, whichRestatements of the Lawhttps://www.ali.org/publications/American Jurisprudence, 2dhttp://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/American-Jurisprudence-2d/p/100027544Corpus Juris Secundumhttp://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/Corpus-Juris-Secundumreg/p/100001060There are more books in major law libraries wheresomeone writes a book about what the law says thanthere are books containing statutes and case law.

Yes, and all of these are written by legal professionals and trainedexperts. I was obviously talking about books written by someone whosimply reads something and then thinks he is an instant expert whoknows all about it.

Give us an example. I doubt you can.

Read some of the examples here about how something is unconstitutionaland then provides a quote from the Constitution to 'prove' it.

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had adiscussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef fromUSDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply fromWilliam T.Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Herebelow is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing yourcorrespondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposedstandard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to WilliamSessions, the associate deputy administrator (how'sthat for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program atUSDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mailaddress are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>To: <jonball@[...]>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claimstandards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, thestandards have not been published in a final form for use. Ihope this information is helpful.Please let me know if further information is needed.Thanks,William T. SessionsAssociate Deputy AdministratorLivestock and Seed Program

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seenmany of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot findanything to indicate if the standards were adopted.Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had adiscussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef fromUSDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply fromWilliam T.Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Herebelow is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing yourcorrespondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposedstandard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to WilliamSessions, the associate deputy administrator (how'sthat for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program atUSDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mailaddress are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>To: <jonball@[...]>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claimstandards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, thestandards have not been published in a final form for use. Ihope this information is helpful.Please let me know if further information is needed.Thanks,William T. SessionsAssociate Deputy AdministratorLivestock and Seed Program

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seenmany of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot findanything to indicate if the standards were adopted.Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Sorry, it makes no difference what laws the legislature passes,onlywhatthe Courts say the law is.

But the law must exist before the courts can interpret it.

No it doesn't. It's called "legislating from the bench"

The label is irrelevant - several are used.

Then you know that courts don't need law, in order to interpret it.Theyjust need to say there is such law.

Wrong yet again. They can only interpret existing law under a casethey adjudicate.

If only that were the case.But I will note that what they can 'interpret' is a matter of law, andonlythe courts can comment on that.

True.

Then you can have nothing further to say on the subject.Your rule, now live with it.

It isn't my rule,, it's the way our system works.

Then why are you so opinionated about the law?

By opinionated you seem to mean I understand how the law actuallyworks,

You claim to know how the law works....then you regularly turn around andrefuse to obey how you claim the law works.

What does that mean? What is 'obey how (I) claim the law works'?

So do I go by your assertion, or by your actions?

Whatever floats your boat. You will go by whatever you can argueabout the most, just as you always do.

<chuckle> And you are different...uh, how, exactly?

unlike the yahoos who keep saying the courts are wrong and givelong-winded examples of what they say the law actually says and means.

IOW, people who can actually show that the law doesn't say what the courtssay, claim or invent it to mean.

Anyone can have such opinions. Those opinions are all meaninglessunless it is a court rendering a legal opinion. No opinion about anylaw has any meaning at all and is anything more than a waste of spaceunless that is a legal opinion rendered by a court and thus a part ofthe legal system.

Yea, I can see why you would disagree with people who actually look at thelaw rather than swallowing the crap that comes from the courts.

So someone looks at a law. They write a book about what it says. Whocares? Someone else can write a different book about that same lawsaying something entirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of these opinionsactually means anything?

In legal scholarship as in other subjects, a consensus emerges. I don'tknow about other nations' courts, but if you read some Americanappellate decisions, the works of scholars are often cited in additionto earlier court decisions.

Scholars who have actually formally studied the law and it'sapplication. Not just some yahoo off the street with an opinion onthe latest court ruling he doesn't like.

--Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a governmentguaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quicklybefore you run into me.

Sorry, it makes no difference what laws the legislature passes,onlywhatthe Courts say the law is.

But the law must exist before the courts can interpret it.

No it doesn't. It's called "legislating from the bench"

The label is irrelevant - several are used.

Then you know that courts don't need law, in order to interpret it.Theyjust need to say there is such law.

Wrong yet again. They can only interpret existing law under a casethey adjudicate.

If only that were the case.But I will note that what they can 'interpret' is a matter of law, andonlythe courts can comment on that.

True.

Then you can have nothing further to say on the subject.Your rule, now live with it.

It isn't my rule,, it's the way our system works.

Then why are you so opinionated about the law?

By opinionated you seem to mean I understand how the law actuallyworks,

You claim to know how the law works....then you regularly turn around andrefuse to obey how you claim the law works.

What does that mean? What is 'obey how (I) claim the law works'?

So do I go by your assertion, or by your actions?

Whatever floats your boat. You will go by whatever you can argueabout the most, just as you always do.

<chuckle> And you are different...uh, how, exactly?

unlike the yahoos who keep saying the courts are wrong and givelong-winded examples of what they say the law actually says and means.

IOW, people who can actually show that the law doesn't say what the courtssay, claim or invent it to mean.

Anyone can have such opinions. Those opinions are all meaninglessunless it is a court rendering a legal opinion. No opinion about anylaw has any meaning at all and is anything more than a waste of spaceunless that is a legal opinion rendered by a court and thus a part ofthe legal system.

Yea, I can see why you would disagree with people who actually look at thelaw rather than swallowing the crap that comes from the courts.

So someone looks at a law. They write a book about what it says. Whocares? Someone else can write a different book about that same lawsaying something entirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of these opinionsactually means anything?

In legal scholarship as in other subjects, a consensus emerges. I don'tknow about other nations' courts, but if you read some Americanappellate decisions, the works of scholars are often cited in additionto earlier court decisions.

Scholars who have actually formally studied the law and it'sapplication. Not just some yahoo off the street with an opinion onthe latest court ruling he doesn't like.

So someone looks at a law. They write a book aboutwhat it says. Who cares? Someone else can writea different book about that same law saying somethingentirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of theseopinions actually means anything?

Courts care, sometimes they care a lot.There are many books written pretty much that way, whichRestatements of the Lawhttps://www.ali.org/publications/American Jurisprudence, 2dhttp://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/American-Jurisprudence-2d/p/100027544Corpus Juris Secundumhttp://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/Corpus-Juris-Secundumreg/p/100001060There are more books in major law libraries wheresomeone writes a book about what the law says thanthere are books containing statutes and case law.

Yes, and all of these are written by legal professionals and trainedexperts. I was obviously talking about books written by someone whosimply reads something and then thinks he is an instant expert whoknows all about it.

Somehow, I don't see you writing such books. Yet, you sure seem to feel youknow all about the law, the courts and our entire legal system.

They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that casethey are charged with applying the law as they see it, usingthe wording of the law involved and prior court decisions.

So which is it, as they see it or the rest of it?

Rest of what? It is their responsibility to interpret a lawin light of existing statutes and prior case law.

There are actually rules for interpreting/construing laws, for examplecourts must if possible give words their ordinary and usual meaning.

They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words orredefine them.

They most certainly do.After all, they recently redefined marriage.

Not really.

Yes, really. The LAW said marriage was between a man and a woman.The court IGNORED the law, and made up their own definition.Even when the legislature made the law utterly clear and extremelyspecific,the court simply refused to accept the law in favor of their own vision ofwhat the law should be.So clearly they do indeed redefine the words of the law to suitthemselves.Just as they invent powers, authority, etc that they were never granted.

I am not going to get into a debate about any particular law.

Right, because you can't. Instead you wish make sweeping claims about vaststretches of the law, yet you refuse to discuss any particulars at all.

If you can't debate the particulars....then your broad claims areirrelevant, because you wont back them up by discussing the particulars ofyour claims.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions asanyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

Which only proves my point. If the court had to grant itself such apower,then clearly it wasn't granted by the Constitution.

According to the court it was. In Article 3.

Great, then you can show me the specific language in Article 3 thatdoeswhat the courts assert.

I am not an attorney

The shut the fuck up.

You're not an attorney, nor any kind of legal scholar at all, so heed yourown advice.

Except, I haven't you need to be an attorney or any kind of legal scholar todiscuss and debate the law.

Attila, on the other hand, has done so.

Without legal credentials he asserts are necessary, why is he even voicinghis 'ignorant'* opinion.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsas anyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

Which only proves my point. If the court had to grant itself such apower,then clearly it wasn't granted by the Constitution.

According to the court it was. In Article 3.

Great, then you can show me the specific language in Article 3 thatdoeswhat the courts assert.

I am not an attorney

The shut the fuck up.

You're not an attorney, nor any kind of legal scholar at all, so heedyour own advice.

Except, I haven't you need to be an attorney or any kind of legalscholar to discuss and debate the law.Attila, on the other hand, has done so.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsas anyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.And here you told me they couldn't.

They didn't. Article 3.

[""""""Article IIISection 1. The *judicial Power* of the United States *shall bevested**in one supreme Court* , *and in such inferior Courts as theCongress*may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of thesupreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during goodBehaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services aCompensation, which shall not be diminished during theirContinuance inOffice.Article IIISection 2. *The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law**and**Equity* , *arising under this Constitution* , the Laws of the UnitedStates, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, *under their**Authority* ; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other publicMinisters and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritimeJurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall beaParty; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between aStateand Citizens of another State; [Note: modified by Amendment XI] -between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the sameState claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between aState, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens orSubjects.In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers andConsuls,and those in which a State shall be Party, *the supreme Court shall**have original Jurisdiction* . *In all the other Cases before**mentioned* , *the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction* ,*both as to Law and Fact* , *with such Exceptions* , *and under such**Regulations as the Congress shall make* .The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be byJury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimesshall have been committed; but when not committed within any State,theTrial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Lawhavedirected.%Article IIISection 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only inlevying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, givingthemAid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless ontheTestimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession inopen Court.The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason,butno Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeitureexcept during the Life of the Person attainted."""""""]The congress has no power to change the constitution and interpret itand so neither can they empower/delegate the courts any power tochangethe constitution.

Agreed. It takes a ratified Amendment.

So when exactly was Marbury v. Madison ratified as a ConstitutionalAmendment?

That case was not made by congress but by a court. Totally differentsituation.

So much for your bullshit assertion that it takes a ratified Amendmentto change the Constitution.

Marbury v Madison effected no change to the Constitution.

Then show me the language in the Constitution that grants such a power tothe Judicial Branch.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsas anyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.And here you told me they couldn't.

They didn't. Article 3.

[""""""Article IIISection 1. The *judicial Power* of the United States *shall bevested**in one supreme Court* , *and in such inferior Courts as theCongress*may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of thesupreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during goodBehaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services aCompensation, which shall not be diminished during theirContinuance inOffice.Article IIISection 2. *The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law**and**Equity* , *arising under this Constitution* , the Laws of the UnitedStates, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, *under their**Authority* ; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other publicMinisters and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritimeJurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shallbe aParty; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between aStateand Citizens of another State; [Note: modified by Amendment XI] -between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the sameState claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between aState, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens orSubjects.In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers andConsuls,and those in which a State shall be Party, *the supreme Court shall**have original Jurisdiction* . *In all the other Cases before**mentioned* , *the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction* ,*both as to Law and Fact* , *with such Exceptions* , *and under such**Regulations as the Congress shall make* .The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be byJury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimesshall have been committed; but when not committed within any State,theTrial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Lawhavedirected.%Article IIISection 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only inlevying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, givingthemAid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unlesson theTestimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or onConfession inopen Court.The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason,butno Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeitureexcept during the Life of the Person attainted."""""""]The congress has no power to change the constitution andinterpret itand so neither can they empower/delegate the courts any power tochangethe constitution.

Agreed. It takes a ratified Amendment.

So when exactly was Marbury v. Madison ratified as a ConstitutionalAmendment?

That case was not made by congress but by a court. Totally differentsituation.

So much for your bullshit assertion that it takes a ratified Amendmentto change the Constitution.

Marbury v Madison effected no change to the Constitution.

Then show me the language in the Constitution that grants such a powerto the Judicial Branch.

How many times are you going to keep asking for the same thing I'vealready given at least four times?

Article III Section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,*arising under this Constitution*, the laws of the United States,and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority

Challenges to the constitutionality of laws arise under theConstitution. This is clear and beyond challenge.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsas anyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.And here you told me they couldn't.

They didn't. Article 3.

[""""""Article IIISection 1. The *judicial Power* of the United States *shall bevested**in one supreme Court* , *and in such inferior Courts as theCongress*may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of thesupreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during goodBehaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services aCompensation, which shall not be diminished during theirContinuance inOffice.Article IIISection 2. *The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law**and**Equity* , *arising under this Constitution* , the Laws of the UnitedStates, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, *under their**Authority* ; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other publicMinisters and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritimeJurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shallbe aParty; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between aStateand Citizens of another State; [Note: modified by Amendment XI] -between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the sameState claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between aState, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens orSubjects.In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers andConsuls,and those in which a State shall be Party, *the supreme Court shall**have original Jurisdiction* . *In all the other Cases before**mentioned* , *the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction* ,*both as to Law and Fact* , *with such Exceptions* , *and under such**Regulations as the Congress shall make* .The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be byJury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimesshall have been committed; but when not committed within any State,theTrial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Lawhavedirected.%Article IIISection 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only inlevying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, givingthemAid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unlesson theTestimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or onConfession inopen Court.The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason,butno Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeitureexcept during the Life of the Person attainted."""""""]The congress has no power to change the constitution and interpret itand so neither can they empower/delegate the courts any power tochangethe constitution.

Agreed. It takes a ratified Amendment.

So when exactly was Marbury v. Madison ratified as a ConstitutionalAmendment?

That case was not made by congress but by a court. Totally differentsituation.

So much for your bullshit assertion that it takes a ratified Amendmentto change the Constitution.

Marbury v Madison effected no change to the Constitution.

Then show me the language in the Constitution that grants such a powerto the Judicial Branch.

How many times are you going to keep asking for the same thing I'vealready given at least four times?The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,*arising under this Constitution*, the laws of the United States,and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authorityChallenges to the constitutionality of laws arise under the Constitution.This is clear and beyond challenge.

True, but that doesn’t give the Courts any power over the Constitution muchless make the courts the official stewards of the meaning of theConstitution.

Certainly gives them no authority to alter the Constitution by theirrulings.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,*arising under this Constitution*, the laws of the United States,and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authorityChallenges to the constitutionality of laws arise under theConstitution. This is clear and beyond challenge.

True, but that doesn’t give the Courts any power over the Constitutionmuch less make the courts the official stewards of the meaning of theConstitution.

How are courts supposed to rule on cases that arise under theConstitution without interpreting the Constitution?

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,*arising under this Constitution*, the laws of the United States,and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authorityChallenges to the constitutionality of laws arise under theConstitution. This is clear and beyond challenge.

True, but that doesn’t give the Courts any power over the Constitutionmuch less make the courts the official stewards of the meaning of theConstitution.

How are courts supposed to rule on cases that arise under theConstitution without interpreting the Constitution?

They reject the case on the grounds that the law is NOT in theirjurisdiction since the law is obviously flawed and NOT constitutional.

By definition an unconstitutional law can't be addressed by the FederalGovernment or Federal courts so they have to reject it as outsidefederal jurisdiction and that forces the Federal congress to address theproblems that caused the law to NOT pass jurisdictional muster.

--That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOTto allow you to deny other people their rights.

Entirely up to the courts to decide, and they can base it on whatevertheylike.

They are legally required to base any decisions on existing law.

Then show me the existing law within Art 3 of the Constitution thatsupportsMarbury v. Madison.

Read the decision

That's YOUR job.

No, it isn't.

It is if it's your cite, which it is. I didn't ask you what Court decisionestablished that policy, I asked you what existing law within Art 3supported that case. After all, you claimed it is supported by the language,so let's see it.

If you need to read the case to figure out what that Constitutional languageis, then that's your homework.

Oh, but that's right, you don't do evidence, proofs, or anything like that.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions asanyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.And here you told me they couldn't.

They didn't. Article 3.

Then show me the specific language there that does what the courtasserts.

Read the decision.

Where in the Constitution do I find that 'decision'?

The decision isn't "in" the Constitution - it is based upon it.

Then show me the Constitutional language that confers such power to theJudicial Branch.

They are the experts with the opinion thatactually counts.

And if there is no specific language that allows their opinion

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,*arising under this Constitution*, the laws of the United States,and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority

Keyword: Under.

I see NOTHING that allows any Judicial power over or including theConstitution.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsas anyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.And here you told me they couldn't.

They didn't. Article 3.

Then show me the specific language there that does what the courtasserts.

Read the decision.

Where in the Constitution do I find that 'decision'?

The decision isn't "in" the Constitution - it is based upon it.

Then show me the Constitutional language that confers such power to theJudicial Branch.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied anypoweroverthe Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditionsas anyotherpart of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.

See Marbury v. Madison.

So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.And here you told me they couldn't.

They didn't. Article 3.

Then show me the specific language there that does what the courtasserts.

Read the decision.

Where in the Constitution do I find that 'decision'?

The decision isn't "in" the Constitution - it is based upon it.

Then show me the Constitutional language that confers such power to theJudicial Branch.

Plural marriage, when all consenting adults agree to it, isn'tmy cup of tea, but if that's what floats one's boat, I wouldn'tnecessarily dismiss it without strong arguments against it -other than religious ones.

Post by ScoutI mean don't they have an equal right to be married to whomever they want?Somehow I fully expect a double standard and discrimination in youranswer....if you chose to answer at all.

The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't havea general charge to just go out and look at the law.

They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that casetheyarecharged with applying the law as they see it,

Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and eventheintentof existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.Further, you can NOT even question what they claim to see. Iftheysaythe King is wearing the finest suit ever made, then you wouldacceptiteven though no one can see any suit.

And how can they violate you rights your whole life just becausenoonewanted to risk the penalty to bring the case to trial?

There is no penalty for bringing a case to trial other than theexpense.

The risk of penalty is breaking the law to prove it'sunconstitutional.

There is a penalty for breaking any law. The reason is irrelevant.Orshould be.

You otherwise go your whole life being subjected to anunconstitutionallaw which is a violation of the constitution.

If no court has held a law to be unconstitutional it is consideredconstitutional.

That is unconstitutional according to amendment 9.

What court has said this?

Once again, Attila asserts we are governed by the Courts rather than theConstitution.

Wrong yet again.

Not at all. He pointed out that language of the 9th Amendment sayssomethingis Unconstitutional, and you assert the opinion of the court matters morethan the Constitution.

Your "opinion is meaningless."

Feel free to file suit with the court to have them rule that your opinionhas meaning.

Until you get such a ruling, why waste everyone's time voicing opinions thatare meaningless by your own standards?

There are actually rules for interpreting/construing laws, forexamplecourts must if possible give words their ordinary and usual meaning.

They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words orredefine them.

They most certainly do.After all, they recently redefined marriage.

Not really. It is still a legal contract between two parties.

One of whom is a man and the other a woman. Calling a same-sexrelationship a marriage required redefining marriage.

Or a reinterpretation of existing law, which can be done by courts.See Brown vs Board of Education or R v W for two familiar examples ofa court reexamining existing law and prior decisions to reach adifferent conclusion.

So the law didn't change.....only the opinion of the court.

If the opinion of the court is always based on existing law, and the lawhasn't changed.....how can the opinion of the Court?

You do not have the necessary education and background and reasoningability to understand constitutional phrases written by men whose use oflanguage was not the same as contemporary usage. You are making a greatpretense to knowledge you don't have.

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that isthe only basis for any laws in the US.

We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothingin the Constitution that empowers the federal government toestablish an administrative agency, especially an agency that'sunder the control of the executive branch but is given power toenact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation oflegislative power to the executive branch, a violation of theseparation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.

There have been court challenges to every one of these, and thecourtshave said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need nobasis inlaw. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now caselaw.Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of thecourt onwhat the law is.

The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.

According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.

What it means is whatever the court says it means but thatinterpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.

You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It'snothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing theiropinionon what their opinion of the law is.

Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.

That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has theforce of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.

They're usually called orders, or judgments.

I should have been a little more specific: when it's an appellatecourt, and when they make a determination of constitutionality eitherway, it's a holding. There may also be an order, such as sending itback to the trial court.

Appellate decisions are usually called opinions, although they're actualorders and not just opinions. At both trial court and appellate level,a court's analysis contains holdings and dicta. Holdings are thoseparts necessary to an adjudication of the case, while dicta are thingsthe judge wants to say that aren't necessary to the decision.